Amazon AWS Reviews

The product is easy to use. Its availability and support are its biggest strengths.

IAM must be made simple and straightforward. It is a little bit complicated compared to GCP.

I have been using the solution for three to four years.

The product is stable.

The product is scalable.

My company had signed up for professional support. We did not have any issues with support. It would be really tough to reach out to the support team on a personal level. For personal users, I rate the support a three to four out of ten. For professional users, I rate it a nine out of ten.

We are also using Google Cloud Platform. The choice of the product depends on people’s familiarity and their inclination toward using a certain product.

The tool’s pricing is reasonable.

I would recommend the solution. Overall, I rate the product a ten out of ten.

I work on the AWS - the AWS Lambda portions of the Amazon cloud.

It's a good cloud for beginners.

There is no downtime. The solution is reliable. 

Deploying resources on AWS is fairly easy and more secure than any other cloud. That's what our initial impressions are.

Amazon AWS is very lame in the sense that it's into some sort of beginner stage stuff. Most of our customers prefer Azure Cloud over AWS. Azure has lots of features, especially on the identity side. It has integration with the social media built-in plugins. It has integration with a plethora of applications. It has that sort of an ecosystem. Amazon, on the other hand, on most of the integration side, there are applications in Java or there are customer-specific applications and therefore we have to do the development. This is in contrast to Microsoft Azure, where we get the ready-made plugins.

Our experience is AWS should be preferred for the financial sector where there are not very many changes. It's more minimal changes that come into play on the implementation side. We recommend Microsoft Cloud to most of our customers, especially when they want quick implementation and there are a plethora of things to integrate the cloud with. 

With AWS, we feel it has a lot of improvement areas. It's a good cloud, however, if I compare it with Azure, Azure is more of a feature-rich cloud. 

The initial setup can be a bit difficult. 

I expect AWS to come up with more identity features. They should have a very robust identity federation system, like what Azure and maybe Google Cloud are offering. Identity has some sub-verticals, like single sign-on and multifactor authentication and federation with some on-premise systems like ADFS servers or LDAP directories. Those things are very difficult to configure in AWS. AWS should come up with more connectors and more robust and user-friendly IdAM systems so that we can reduce time. We should be able to implement our projects faster.

I've been using the solution for two to two and a half years at this point. 

In terms of stability, the first impression is whatever services we have provisioned in the AWS cloud, we've never caught any issues where we needed to reach out to the Amazon support team. There is no downtime, for example. There are no application crashes. We don't need to plan any high availability or disaster recovery for any of our servers. In regards to that, Amazon is doing a very good job of offering good performance and reliability.

We've never needed to solicit the help of Amazon technical support, In contrast, in the case of Microsoft, we definitely needed their help.

Right now we are working on three clouds actually, Azure, AWS, and Google and we have SAP Cloud in the pipeline as well.

The initial setup is kind of difficult. It's not just users going to Amazon and buying it from an Amazon account. You have to do a lot of configurations.

On a scale of one to five, one being easy and five being hard, I'd rate the implementation process at a four. 

We don't buy the clouds. We give them to the customers and our customers buy the tenants, the subscriptions. They are aware of the license documents with Amazon and the other cloud vendors. Once we have the subscription of a customer, we do the technical implementation.

We don't get into procurement or subscription renewals or product updates or anything like that. We are more on the technical side.

We were doing some research on Oracle Cloud. Whether we are going to build the practice on Oracle Cloud or not, that's the call that has to be taken by my leadership. 

My job role is as a Cloud Security Architect. I prepare solutions and I sell them to the customers. My work primarily involves working on identity systems. I primarily work on the identity federation side. You have identities and disparate sources, and we prefer to have a single identity source using federations and then we prepare solutions around it and sell them to our customers. Those kinds of solutions are the ones I work in.

My advice for first-time users is, if you wish to migrate your private data center to a private cloud where you have servers like VPN servers, radio servers, you have servers for your own applications, whether it's Windows, Linux, Unix, or ADFS, it's better to go for an AWS cloud. However, if you are looking for identity Federation or identity provisioning, then you need to go for a Microsoft Cloud. 

I'll rate AWS  at a seven out of ten due to the fact that it's very secure. It has very good migration categories for the on-premises servers and applications to the AWS private cloud. I can't rate it ten out of ten due to the lack of IdAM features I've seen, and AWS has less of a user base as it's not very user-friendly. This is where Azure scores a lot higher for me. It's very user-friendly and it's feature-rich, actually. If AWS can develop a more feature-rich offering, it will be on par with Azure.

It is primarily for cloud hosting. If you're developing a solution for a customer who wants it on the cloud, then AWS and Microsoft Azure are two major choices. There are other providers too, but AWS is quite user-friendly.

We use AWS for scalable cloud hosting and computing services. We store all our customer data on Amazon EC2 Instances.

We haven't had any security problems, and Amazon offers automated vulnerability audits. This helps us test our solutions for vulnerabilities and show customers that our systems are secure.

Security, quick deployment, and scalability are the top three features for me.

Like every other customer, I'd suggest pricing is the one feature everyone wants AWS to improve. 

I have been using it for five years. 

It is a stable solution. 

It is a scalable solution. We've worked with about five customers so far. 

We haven't needed technical support.

Sometimes, customers ask for AWS solutions, but we offer choices based on their needs. Price and geographical preferences can influence their decision. Sometimes, the customers can go for a cheaper product.  We don't force them, but we make recommendations.

The quickest way to set it up is the most beneficial feature. We can set up resources quickly and scale them as needed, starting small and growing as requirements increase. That's very helpful. It saves us a lot of time. 

The initial setup is straightforward if you spend some time learning it. They're improving the user interface, which helps.

My team takes care of the implementation. They find it easy to deploy. We haven't faced any issues so far.

It's not very pricey, but it could be cheaper. There are other options like GoDaddy and HostGator.

There are various options, and some can be cheaper than paying a full license.

Read the documentation carefully before starting. Preparation saves time in the long run. For example, the ease of integrating different AWS services depends on your expertise.

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

I am impressed with the solution's EC2 EKS. 

The product should reduce carbon emissions. 

I have been working with the solution for ten years. 

I would rate the tool's stability an eight out of ten. 

I would rate the solution's scalability a nine out of ten. 

I would rate the solution's setup an eight out of ten. 

I would rate the product a nine out of ten. 

We deploy our core application and our integrations platform on AWS EC2 instances. Both applications contain multiple containerized Python Django applications, which need to scale with how often and how intensely customers use the platform. 

We need a secure cloud environment to support our new self-service API, allowing customers to hit our services from outside an outside service. AWS provides the security, scalability, and flexibility to make this happen.

We also store large customer files on AWS S3 Buckets.

Without AWS, our organization simply would not exist. Our entire tech stack is served on AWS. Thanks to AWS, we have been able to save money. Thanks to AWS, we have been able to save time and utilize technical resources in other ways. Other ways include building out the front end of our application as well as the back end of our application. Without AWS, we would have to hire network/server engineers, which would take away from our overall speed of growth.

We have found the Elastic Cloud Compute service (EC2) as well as the simple storage solution (S3) to be the most valuable aspects of the solution.

We deploy our core application and our integration platform on AWS EC2 instances. These applications contain multiple containerized Python Django applications, which need to scale up and down dynamically. They also need to be secure to prevent unwanted bad actors from using our AWS compute instances for malicious activity.

Finally, we find the S3 buckets to be quite valuable. S3 allows us to securely store large customer files without fear of them being compromised, changed, lost, or corrupted.

I am not an expert in AWS, nor do I work in the dev-ops department, so I might not be the best person to ask this question. It could be made cheaper. I know we spend a lot of money each month on AWS.

We have been using AWS since the company was founded in 2017 - about five years.

AWS makes deployment and management of infrastructure easier. We are using so many features, including Lambda, Elastic Beanstalk, Elastic Container Service, EC2 instances, and Landing Zone. We rely heavily on AWS, and we're constantly taking advantage of new features as they come out to see how they can add value to the business. 

AWS's containerization is the most useful feature for us. 

I'd like to see AWS implement consolidated billing for businesses operating under one group. We want to consolidate the functionalities but keep the billing separate. That is a challenge we've faced, and I feel it's something they can improve on. For example, maybe you have three businesses that are operating under one group, and you want each entity to have a separate bill for the respective workload that they're using. But in terms of technical expertise, you want to consolidate the technical support and function of the three accounts. That's an area where AWS is struggling.

I've been using Amazon AWS for about four or five years.

AWS is stable.

AWS is scalable. We're serving close to 7,000 or 8,000 end-users with it.

AWS support is good.

AWS is pay as you go.

We reviewed the main three cloud providers: GCP, Azure, and AWS.

I rate AWS 9.5 out of 10. I would recommend it. 

One of the most common use cases is people using the solution for hosting. Many people use it to backup their on-premises solution to the cloud. This is the most common use case I know of. 

The most valuable feature is the backup ability. Most people are used to one type of backup solution that they're using, but most of these solutions have features that make it difficult to transfer to the cloud. I know that Veeam now gives people the opportunity to backup some on-premises solutions to the cloud. This feature is something that a lot of people are looking for. 

I'm not an expert on the product, but if I had to suggest one improvement, I know a feature that would allow a person to back up his on-premise solution to the cloud directly with one click would be useful. This solution should be agnostic because sometimes a product that was backed up with Veeam is highly compatible with Commvault. I think it would be better if these backup features were agnostic. 

Viewing a build could also be improved. It's not easy to follow up on your consumption and see how much you're paying and how much you will be paying. Viewing the build could be more clear. 

I have been working with Amazon AWS for three years. 

This solution is stable. 

This solution is scalable. 

Two years ago, I was working on proofs of concept and I got in touch with their support. It was okay and they handled it. 

The setup process was quite simple. 

My company implemented through an in-house team. My company also provides the maintenance for this product. 

Amazon AWS is on the cheaper side, as their pricing is more competitive. There are no additional costs besides the license. However, Azure sells Microsoft licenses, so they have an advantage. 

I was aware of Google Cloud and Microsoft Cloud, but I chose Amazon because they have better products and more features. At the moment, Amazon is the leader in everything. 

I recommend trying Amazon AWS. You have nothing to be afraid of, as long as you're clear that you can handle your build. 

This product is suitable for any company, whether small, medium, or large. 

I would rate Amazon AWS an eight out of ten, just because there's always room for improvement. 

I'm not the developer, so I cannot judge the services provided by AWS, but we run our mobile banking application on AWS. Database-wise, it's heavily based on Elasticsearch, so this is probably one of the main features that we find most valuable. Aside from that, I'm not familiar with which AWS services we are using.

It's too early to say what needs to be improved, as we went live only at the beginning of this year. We started last year and went live at the beginning of this year, so it's still a work in progress. In terms of additional features we'd like to see, the one thing that comes to mind is better integration with Oracle. We have a lot of Oracle databases, and there is no other option to either migrate to PaaS, stay on-prem, or use Oracle Private Cloud. So better integration with Oracle is something we are looking into. It's the same story with AWS or Azure. 

We introduced AWS in production last year, so it's a relatively new development.

Setting up AWS was pretty easy. It was straightforward to set up, and it took us a year to develop and migrate our mobile banking solution to the AWS cloud. Our migration experience was quite positive.

The pricing of AWS was attractive for us, so that's something that's okay at least for this transaction-based system. However, we still have some concerns about more data-driven applications or those that involve a lot of heavy uploading and downloading. So our whole data warehouse is still something that would not go into the cloud because of the pricing model. So if you stayed pretty much in the cloud, that's fine.

I would rate Amazon AWS seven out of 10. We're really satisfied.